House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued this brief statement after the DOMA decision was announced:

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis and President Clinton signed it into law. The House intervened in this case because the constitutionality of a law should be judged by the Court, not by the president unilaterally. While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances. A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman

As BTB’s Timothy Kincaid pointed out, many are seeing his statement and others from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R_KY) as a sign that Republican leadership isn’t eager to take up opposition to marriage equality in the nation’s Capital. They can see the tea leaves as well as anyone. Well, almost anyone. One rank and file Congressman looked at Boehner’s statement and saw things differently:

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), speaking at a Tuesday meeting between reporters and conservative lawmakers, said he will file a constituional amendment in Congress late this week to restore DOMA. Huelskamp said he will be joined by other conservatives.

“My response to this [decision] will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment,” he said.

When asked if leadership is likely to support efforts to restore DOMA, Huelskamp said he was encouraged by the Boehner’s statement after the ruling. “I give tremendous credit to the Speaker of House,” Huelskamp said.

Whatever Huelskamp may think he saw in Boehner’s statement, I think it’s safe to say however that DOMA’s revival will be DOA as soon as it hits the House floor.

I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role. I do not believe that President Clinton and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress acted with malice or intent to ‘demean’ a class of people when they adopted a uniform definition of marriage for the purposes of federal law. The Court should not have second guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional justifications. The sweeping language of today’s majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come.

For millions of Americans, the definition of marriage is not an abstract political question, or some remote legal debate. It’s a deeply personal issue. It’s an issue that I have grappled with as well.

I believe that marriage is a unique historical institution best defined as the union between one man and one woman. In the U.S., marriage has traditionally been defined by state law, and I believe each state, acting through their elected representatives or the ballot, should decide their own definition of marriage. For the purposes of federal law, however, Congress had every right to adopt a uniform definition and I regret that the Supreme Court would interfere with that determination.

The Court should not have second guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional justifications.

Really? He is pulling that now? The more I hear about Rubie the more I dislike him. I have a feeling he will get a reality check pretty soon. he thinks that Latinos will vote with him because he is latino and he is about to see how that is not going to happen.

So now congress is the representative of people, but in california, when the representatives of people passed a law saying the opposite, well, those were not really representing anyone.

Better leave it here before I am put in moderation because of use of profanity.

Rubio is absolutely right. The definition of marriage is not an abstract issue. It is deeply personal. To millions of Americans. *raises hand* It is not an abstract issue to me. It is deeply personal to me. I want to get married to the man I’ve been together with for over 23 years. The person who is making this some “abstract political issue” is Rubio (and his ilk) who are refusing to acknowledge that we are real people who really want to get married.

It’s so lovely for that pondscum to handwave discrimination when it’s not his Cuban parents being subjected to societal abuse as Cubans were on earlier years (rent announcements would clearly specify “No Cubans”, Cuban children would be deemed mentally retarded just because they only spoke Spanish).

And the worse part is he’ll keep getting elected because the Hispanic media never covers his homophobia, let alone any discussions on homophobia when it comes to their shining Latino white knight.

A clean, wholesome, Cuban Republican young gun that the Cubans in Florida will be happy to back in his political aspirations as they backed Romney.

Thank you emcee_cubed, I was thinking the same thing you were, though you said it much better than I could have.

I’m struck by this ‘consistency’ argument. The Fed’s recognition of every legal state marriage seems pretty darn consistent to me. DOMA went out of its way to make things inconsistent: every legal state marriage except…. Yeah, it was a simple sentence, but it was legal nightmare for so many as more and more states got equal marriage. DOMA may have provided consistency for Rubio’s skewed view point, but it certainly didn’t seem that way in practice. Indeed, are there not inconsistencies amongst the marriage laws of the various states? Has the federal government done anything to iron out all these other differences for ‘consistency sake’ at the federal level? I think he would find that the answer is a big, fat ‘NO’.

Now I feel like Lindoro. I could say more, but it would degrade into grumblings about partisan politics while specifying certain parties for particularly rude epitaphs because they want to pretend they aren’t the only organized group of bigots on display.

Rubio clearly didn’t read what Congress itself wrote into its own record – it was explicitly passed to promote heterosexuality and express a sweeping moral disapproval of homosexuality. In writing. In the record.

I don’t care what he believes – if he believes it he’s an idiot, and if he doesn’t, he’s a liar.

He is Cuban and they don’t get along very well with other Hispanics because of the preferential treatment that Cubans get over other Latinos. It might have something to do with the fact that Cubans fleeing their country are automatically given the ability to become us citizens after one year while Latinos from other countries feeling bad conditions are required to wait and are prosecuted.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.